Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment Bill 2007
OBJECTIVES:
The Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Act 2003 provides for the management of genetically modified (GM) food plants in NSW in accordance with market requirements. The Commonwealth deals with human health and environmental issues under the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth). The Act is due to expire in March 2008. Without amendments, all GM crops would be allowed to be cultivated in NSW. In July 2007, a panel of experts recommended the NSW Government to remove the moratorium orders on the cultivation of GM canola and make amendments to the Act to provide a clear ‘path to market’ for GM food products.
The Bill extends the Act until July 2011. It also establishes a scheme for consideration of applicants for the commercial cultivation of GM food crops in NSW, if the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) has approved those crops for commercial cultivation. The key proposals for amendment are to:
—Restate the objects of the Act;—Establish a blanket moratorium on the commercial cultivation of GM food plants except as permitted by the amended Act;—Establish a scheme for approving a GM food plant or class of GM food plant for commercial cultivation in NSW;—Ensure industry meets certain criteria, which address market requirements, including segregation of GM and non-GM food plant where relevant;—Establish an Expert Committee in place of the present Ministerial Advisory Council to provide advice to the Minister; and—Give the Minister the power to declare that a specified GM food plant is approved for commercial cultivation in all, or part of, NSW.
COMMENTS:
MARKET / COMPETITIVE REASONS
Prior to any acceptance of GM food crops, State governments have the legislated responsibility to assess economics, industry preparedness and the associated market risk. Although there are many vested interests in providing a path to market for GM food crops, State governments cannot ignore their responsibility to retain path to market for non-GM crops.
According to the NSW Government, international experience supports the position that the adoption of GM canola would not result in the loss of market share for Australian canola. The NSW Government argues that having a national consistency is important to enable an efficient supply chain while also giving our farmers the maximum opportunity to compete on the world scale.
However, calculations based on the biotech industry’s own figures show that if GM canola was introduced to Australia and 20% of farmers adopted it, Australian farmers will be at least $143 million per year worse off. The key problem is that non-GM farmers will be burdened with a large proportion of this loss, valued at $65.52million. According to the Australian Government, non-GM farmers will have little or no legal recourse against the GM industry for economic loss caused.
Australia has the advantage being the only exporting country of GM free canola in the world. This allows us to sell without the competition from our biggest competitors Canada and the United States. This market advantage has given Australia premium over GM canola grown in Canada. Australian GM free canola has an eager world market that accepts our total production.
Canada is the only major canola producer in the world to have adopted GM canola, and the vast majority of the world’s canola remains GM Free. Contrary to the rosey picture painted by industry, the profitability of canola production in Canada has crashed over the past decade. Canadian canola farmers are heavily subsidised, and if Australia adopted GM canola, farmers would be likely to need similar subsidies.
According to the Canadian National Farmers Union (2005), “Over the past decade, corporate and government managers have spent millions trying to convince farmers and other citizens of the benefits of genetically-modified (GM) crops. But this huge public relations effort has failed to obscure the truth: GM crops do not deliver the promised benefits; they create numerous problems, costs, and risks; and Canadian consumers and foreign customers alike do not want these crops. It would be too generous even to call GM crops a solution in search of a problem: These crops have failed to provide significant solutions, and their use is creating problems – agronomic, environmental, economic, social, and potentially human health problems”. (Network of Concerned Farmers 2007: 5).
Australia’s most important export markets for canola are Japan and Europe, accounting for 41% and 38% of exports in 2006. Australian canola has been attracting premiums and preferential market access in these countries, precisely because of its non-GM status. Canada lost its entire canola seed exports to Europe as the result of introducing GM canola. This year a delegation of Japanese consumer groups visited Australia and delivered a petition signed by 151 consumer organisations, representing 2.9 million Japanese consumers, urging the State Governments to extend their GM food crop moratoria. It is evident that consumers in Australia, and major export markets such as Europe and Japan, remain absolutely opposed to GM food.
The domestic market accounts for approximately 20-30% of total canola seed production (depending on the year), making it the third largest market for Australian canola. The two largest buyers are Goodman Fielder and Unilever, both of which have a policy to avoid the use of GM derived canola oil. Peter Margin, the CEO of Goodman Fielder, recently wrote to State Premiers urging them to extend their moratoria on GM food crops. Both Coles supermarkets and Australia’s largest food manufacturer, Goodman Fielder, have voiced their opposition.
CO-EXISTENCE AND CROSS-POLLINATION
Co-existence between GE and non-GE canola is not an option as segregation is impossible. Research conducted in 2002 shows contamination of non-GE crops at distances up to three kilometres. Government and industry have promised co-existence and choice of production. To date there are no protocols of codes of practice established for the benefits of farmers. There have been no independent trials to demonstrate any agronomic benefits associated with GM canola.
The concerns that led to the introduction of the moratoria include liability and insurance issues, problems with segregation and cross contamination and export market sensitivities.
Initial attempts to segregate non-GM canola in Canada failed and it is now nearly impossible to grow non-GM canola in most of the country. Based on the North American experience, it is virtually guaranteed that a GM/non-GM segregation system will fail because the seed supply is already contaminated. Canadian researchers tested 33 samples of certified non-GM canola seed and found that 32 samples were contaminated with GM varieties.
Also, cross pollination with common family species is inevitable and creates herbicide resistant superweeds, as outlined in scientific studies done in the UK and Canada. This is already a major problem to control. Seed loss during transport movements is also inevitable. (Independent Review Submission 2007: 3).
SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONING
As mentioned previously, there is uncertainty around the safety of GM food. In June this year, new research published in the leading scientific journal Nature revealed serious flaws in the science behind genetic engineering. The research calls into question the assumption that each DNA sequence can be isolated and has its own function. Instead, genes operate in a complex network where they react, interact and overlap with each other in ways that are still far from being understood. This new research shows that genes cannot be considered as isolated units – nor can they be controlled. This raises serious questions about the safety of GM crops. (SMH 28/11/07: 14).
There have been recent studies questioning the science behind GM and the safety of GM food has only served to heighten consumer concern on the issue. Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology in the United States, worked with more than 30 scientists and documented 65 health risks of GE foods. There are thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions in humans, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals.
The process of inserting a foreign gene into a plant cell and cloning that cell into a GE crop produces hundreds of thousands of mutilations throughout the DNA. Natural plant genes may be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds can change their function. This is why GE soy has less protein, an unexpected new allergen and up to seven times higher levels of a known soy allergen.
The only human feeding study conducted on GE foods found genes had transferred into the DNA of gut bacteria and remained functional. This means that long after we stop eating a GE food, its protein may be produced continuously inside our intestines. Furthermore, lab animals that are fed GM crops had altered stem cells and embryos, a five-fold increase in infant mortality, smaller brains, and a host of other problems.
Furthermore, documents made public by a lawsuit revealed that scientists at the US Food and Drug Administration warned that gene-spliced foods might lead to allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems.
SAFETY CONCERNS
Serious questions remain surrounding the safety of GM foods. It is therefore hardly surprising that recent poll results show that the majority of Australian farmers do not want to grow GM crops and the majority of consumers do not want to eat them. According to Judy Carmen, Epidermologist, from Flinders University, the safety issue has not been properly assessed.
In 2005, after 10 years of research, Dr Jim Peacock (Australia’s Chief Scientist) halted its work on peas genetically modified to resist insects after health problems emerged in mice subjected to independent feeding trials over just four weeks. In yesterday’s 7.30 Report on ABC, Judy Carmen stated: “The animals had very strong allergic reactions to the pea and what was worse was those animals then all of a sudden became allergic to other things as well.” (www.abc.net.au/7.30).
CONSUMER RESISTANCE
Consumer resistance is the strongest economic argument for remaining GM free. As the Australian Wheat Board has noted, “Legislation might allow GMs but that doesn’t mean our customers want them.” There is no evidence of waning consumer opposition to GM crops in either Australia, our major export markets such as the EU and Japan.
Combined with growing levels of consumer concern regarding the potential health impacts of GM food, it is hardly surprising that recent poll results show that the majority of Australian farmers do not want to grow GM crops and the majority of consumers do not want to eat them.
LIABILITY ISSUES BETWEEN FARMERS
The inability of farmers to contain GE canola production within their boundaries will lead to lawsuits between farmers and farmers and the biotechnology companies. There is no legal framework in place to protect Australian farmers who elect not to grow GM canola. The Australian Grains Harvesting Association has estimated an increase in liability costs of 40% for harvesters. (Independent Review Submission 2007: 4).
Furthermore, GM contamination scandals have plagued countries, such as the Canada and the United States, that have adopted GM crops. These have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of lost export revenue and costly litigation.
POWERFUL VESTED INTERESTS
The push to lift the moratoria in all States is predominantly coming from those with a commercial interest in the uptake of the GM technology. They are well funded and encouraged by both State and Federal Governments, who wish to withdraw public funding for research and development and encourage commercial investment. It needs to be recognised that private funding into research and development has expected financial outcomes. These outcomes are not necessarily for the common good.
For instance, the Australian Federal Government has millions of dollars invested in GM crops through its agencies such as CSIRO – which has strategic partnerships with bioagricultual multinationals such as Monsanto and Bayer. Moreover, Dr Jim Peacock, who has given the green light to lift bans on genetically modified canola, has founded the gene shears company Graingene Initiative, HRZ wheat consortium and a CSIRO partnered and patented GM cotton strain. (www.abc.net.au/7.30)
CONCLUSION:
Key agronomic, market and coexistence issues remain to be resolved before the State moratoria on GM food crops can be lifted. To allow time for these issues to be resolved, the current moratoria should be extended until fair risk management is introduced.
Therefore, I do not support the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment Bill 2007 nor do I commend the Legislation to the House.
